1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

MUST we have only one text?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Mexdeaf, Dec 13, 2011.

  1. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think of other versions as corrupted. I believe a person can be saved using these versions, a person can be saved reading a tract, through hearing a sermon, or the testimony of a believer. But I believe a believer will get more out of the true text and is less likely to fall into error.

    I have never said the word of God is preserved in English only, if you were to faithfully and accurately translate the KJB text into another language, that would be the preserved and pure word of God in that language. I understand you might have to supply some words, as the KJB translators had to do. I know you cannot translate word for word from one language to another.

    You are entitled to disagree with me, as I am with you.
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    #122 gb93433, Dec 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2011
  3. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    The more I Study the more I see the ignorance of so many who have not studied the historical context of the scripture they read. About 98% of those during the time of the NT could not read.
     
    #123 gb93433, Dec 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2011
  4. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    What are you saying? What does a high rate of illiteracy have to do with the preservation of scripture?
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    It has everything to do with understanding what they are reading rather than thinking "what it says to me."
     
  6. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did God perfectly preserve his word prior to the TR coming out? If yes, then your reasoning is bad. You can't say you have to choose one text as perfectly preserved if you believe that it was perfectly preserved prior to it existence.

    The problem isn't with your research, it's with kjvo propaganda that you have bought into.
     
  7. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Can "presumptions" really be a basis of faith?

    I do not believe so, because presumptions by definition are merely assumed truths, as opposed to the Bible itself, which IS truth, and makes no claims whatsoever for a preserved text outside of the originals.
     
  8. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    If you read the OT, you will see the word of God was lost at various times, such as shown in 2 Kings 22:8.

    2 Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

    11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard these words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.

    The word of God was lost for a period of time in the OT. Was it preserved? Yes, but the people did not have it for awhile. But under Josiah, who was one of the good kings it was recovered.

    I believe something very similar happened with the KJB. I truly believe God's hand was behind it and brought it to pass. One of the great evidences for the KJB has been how it has survived, and the great period of worldwide evangelism that began just as it became prominent. I do not think it coincidence that England became the first worldwide super-power, with trade and colonies all over the earth, even remote islands, at this very time. The English took the word of God to the world.
     
  9. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    We are all forced to make some assumptions, whether you believe in the KJB or CT text. None of us was there when God inspired his prophets to record the word.

    I believe it is a perfectly safe assumption to believe God desires to reveal himself to us, otherwise we would have no scriptures at all. Besides being promised that his word would be preserved, it is a safe assumption that it would be. God is not the author of confusion, why would he spread his word through many various texts where we would have to guess where his word is? That doesn't make sense to me at all. It is the devil that wants us to be confused, he is the one that would introduce corrupt manuscripts to confuse us.

    So, I stick to my point, that only one text can be preserved, or else they are all corrupt. They cannot both contain and omit scripture like the ending of Mark 16, that is utterly illogical.

    And if they are all corrupt, might as well throw them all in the trash. How can you have faith in that which you believe is corrupt?

    So, you have to take a stand by faith IMO, you will never figure it out scientifically. If anything, with each new discovery, MORE confusion is introduced.

    My 2 cents, take it or leave it.
     
    #129 Winman, Dec 30, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2011
  10. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Actually with each new discovery, the Bible is more thoroughly vindicated. It's our lack of faith that God did what He said He would do in the first place that causes confusion.
     
  11. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Was there no other copies?....well anyway, todays critical texts are based on almost 5600 manuscripts. The majority of them discovered after the KJV.

    As i said, you have bought into the KJVO propaganda. What you are stating has absolutely no biblical nor historical evidence. Besides, if you are going to say that God's hand was behind the KJV in the sense that he kept them from error, you are basically giving the KJV translators the same authority as the original writers. This is what is usually described as double inspiration with God giving us the words in English. Now, if you are speaking of the Greek here, then don't say KJV as that is confusing. (I know the multiple TR's, but there are also multiple KJV's).
     
  12. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Again, which you keep not understanding is that you cannot be right here. A specific text(NA27, UBS 4th, MT or the TR) has to be 100% perfect.
    What, you mean like the 1500 years before anything called a TR was in existence? And what do you mean by "corrupt"? Do you mean if there is one error in the people compiling the Greek text that it's corrupt?

    Faith in the Bible or faith in the mysterious KJVO propaganda?
     
  13. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    Both the TR/CT are 'enough/close to" the original manuscripts to warrent them as being essentially the "word of God" for today, either can be the basis for translation!
     
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    I saw a program the other night called "The Bible on Trial". It was done by a trial lawyer who used "evidence" to prove the validity of the bible. In it he said that there are over 5000 manuscripts of the NT in comparison to only a dozen or less of other works such as Plato or Shakespeare. Quite a difference!
    Every manuscript that is discovered only helps to confirm the truth of the bible as God's word. I don't think we should just throw them away because they aren't the TR. That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. (southern talk :))
     
  15. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    :thumbsup::thumbs::godisgood:
     
  16. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yep! Homer's Iliad that has around 643 manuscript copies. There are 5600 just in Greek for the NT. If you include all manuscripts, it's closer to 24,000. Sophocles has 193 manuscripts with a 1400 year span between the original writing and the earliest manuscripts. The Iliad has a 500 year gap. The NT has a 25 year gap. After Sophocles, its Aristotle with 49 and the rest are 20 and below. Plato is 7. As you said, "quite a difference!"

    It's not even close. We have plenty of evidence for the Bible and what it says.
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thanks for your posts, jbh28.

    It is interesting to note here that there are more Latin manuscripts (about 10,000) than Greek. The Latin MSS are overwhelmingly classified as the 'Western' texttype. Therefore, if all manuscripts were taken into consideration then a different 'majority' text would emerge (a non-Byzantine one).

    There is no doubt that Greek was the original language that the Apostolic writers would have employed. But copies of Christian writings would have began appearing in the the 4th Century or earlier. Therefore, the Latin manuscripts are, on the whole, just about as ancient as the main body of Greek MSS that are primarily categorized 'Byzantine'. Prima facie, there really is no reason to declare the (Greek) Byzantine copies as being more faithful copies than the Latin translations since, for the most part, the Latin can readily attest to the underlying Greek. Am I right?

    BTW- does any one know right off hand the age of the earliest Latin MSS?
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I appreciate his posts too.

    Yep.

    Perhaps (Vercellenis) of the 4th century. It dealt with the Gospels. The symbol is it with a tiny a.
     
Loading...